Chamber Advocate: 2026 Ballot Measures and Chamber Positions
Constitutional Amendment I: An Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution that Repeals Expanded Medicaid Coverage if Federal Funding for the Program Drops below 90%.
Attorney General Jackley’s Explanation:
Medicaid is a program, funded by the State and the federal government, to provide medical coverage for low-income children, pregnant women, disabled individuals, and the elderly. In the 2022 General Election the voters approved Constitutional Amendment D, which expanded Medicaid eligibility in South Dakota. Amendment D requires the State to also provide Medicaid benefits to anyone over the age of 18 and under 65 whose income is at or below 133% of the federal property level, plus 5% of the federal poverty level for the applicable family size. Currently, federal law requires the federal government to fund 90% of South Dakota’s Medicaid expansion. This proposed Constitutional Amendment ends the expanded Medicaid coverage if the federal funding for expansion drops below 90%. If federal funding drops below that 90% threshold, Medicaid coverage will once again only apply to low-income children, pregnant women, disabled individuals, and the elderly.
Vote “Yes” to adopt the amendment.
Vote “No” to leave the Constitution as it is.
Editor’s note: The Attorney General’s official explanation uses the term “federal property level.” The correct term is “federal poverty level.” The explanation is reproduced as published by the state.
Pro: Proponents of this amendment argue that when voters approved expanded Medicaid in 2022, they did so with the understanding that the federal government would pay 90% of the cost and South Dakota would pay the remaining 10%. This amendment aims to protect that 90/10 split by ensuring the state is not financially responsible for additional costs should the federal government change the current rate. Proponents estimate that every 10-percentage-point reduction in federal funding would require an additional $36 million from the state budget.
Con: Opponents of the amendment argue that voting no would preserve expanded Medicaid, which passed in 2022 and currently allows nearly 30,000 South Dakotans to access health care. They assert that if federal funding falls below 90%, this amendment would trigger the elimination of expanded Medicaid coverage and its associated funding. Opponents also point to challenges facing rural medical services and providers, including potential facility closures as a result.
Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce’s Position: No Position
Constitutional Amendment J: An Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution Clarifying that an Individual Must Be a Citizen of the United States to be Eligible to Vote.
Attorney General Jackley’s Explanation:
Article VII, § 2 of the South Dakota Constitution defines who is qualified to vote in state elections. Among these qualifications are age, residency, and United States citizenship requirements. Article VII, § 2 also establishes that individuals may be disqualified from voting because of mental incompetence or a felony conviction. This constitutional amendment adds people who are not United States citizens to the list of individuals disqualified from voting, clarifying the existing requirement that only citizens may vote in state elections.
Vote “Yes” to adopt the amendment.
Vote “No” to leave the Constitution as it is.
Pro: Proponents of this amendment argue that the South Dakota Constitution does not explicitly disqualify noncitizens from voting in state elections. They contend that this amendment closes a loophole and ensures that only citizens can vote in state elections, preserving election integrity.
Con: Opponents of this amendment argue that it could create an undue burden if an individual’s citizenship is challenged. If challenged, an individual may have to provide proof of citizenship before voting, potentially delaying their ability to cast a ballot. Opponents also argue that the South Dakota Constitution already prohibits noncitizens from voting in state elections, making this amendment duplicative.
Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce’s Position: No Position
Constitutional Amendment K: An Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution Establishing the Trust for Unclaimed Property Fund.
Attorney General Jackley’s Explanation:
Under South Dakota statute, intangible property is presumed to be abandoned if it remains unclaimed by the owner for more than three years after it became payable or distributable. Examples of intangible property are traveler’s checks, money orders, bank deposits, refunds, stocks, funds owed under a life insurance policy, and property held in a safe deposit box. Abandoned intangible property is transferred to the State Treasurer to hold while waiting for the owner to claim it. The State Treasurer must provide public notice of the abandoned property. This proposed constitutional amendment establishes a trust fund where unclaimed abandoned property will be deposited. Portions of the interest and income from this fund will be distributed into the general fund for the benefit of the state. This proposed amendment requires the Legislature to determine the amount to be distributed that promotes the growth of the trust fund and the distributed amount.
Vote “Yes” to adopt the amendment.
Vote “No” to leave the Constitution as it is.
Pro: Proponents of the amendment argue that interest earned on unclaimed property would generate a new source of state revenue. This funding, as determined by the Legislature, could support schools, roads and other public services. The amendment also preserves the ability of owners to claim their unclaimed property at any time.
Con: No official opponent statement has been authored at this time.
Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce’s Position: Support
Explanation: The Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce supports Amendment K. The amendment promotes fiscal responsibility in the management of the Unclaimed Property Fund. In the past, the state has used these dollars for various expenses. However, the creation of the Unclaimed Property Trust Fund would keep those dollars in a dedicated fund, allowing the state to draw on interest earnings without spending funds that may have to be paid back to claimants in the future. This would provide a more consistent source of revenue through interest earned on the fund, rather than spending lump sums from the fund year after year. If passed, Amendment K would promote fiscal responsibility in state government while allowing the fund to continue growing and potentially generate revenue for decades to come.
Constitutional Amendment L: An Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution Requiring that a Proposed Constitutional Amendment or Revision Receive an Affirmative Vote of Sixty Percent of the Votes Cast.
Attorney General Jackley’s Explanation:
The State Constitution provides that any proposed constitutional amendment or revision must be submitted to the voters for approval. Currently, a proposed constitutional amendment or revision becomes part of the Constitution if approved by a majority of the votes cast. This proposed Constitutional Amendment increases the number of votes required for a proposed constitutional amendment or revision to become part of the Constitution. If passed, further constitutional amendments must receive an affirmative vote of sixty percent of the votes cast to be implemented.
Vote “Yes” to adopt the amendment.
Vote “No” to leave the Constitution as it is.
Pro: Proponents of this amendment argue that it would serve as a safeguard against the influence of out-of-state actors on the state constitution. Proponents point out that the U.S. Constitution is much harder to amend. Changes to the U.S. Constitution require a 2/3 vote of the U.S. House and Senate, followed by ratification of 3/4 of the states. Overall, proponents note that only changes with broad support from South Dakotans should become part of the state constitution, not movements that may be dependent on the political whims of an election cycle.
Con: Opponents of this amendment argue that South Dakota voters have already answered similar questions in the past through Amendment X (2018) and Amendment C (2022). They argue that this amendment would remove important checks and balances, making it harder for South Dakotans and easier for legislators to influence policy. Opponents point out that South Dakota was one of the first states to give citizens the power to propose and vote on laws directly, a power they believe should not be infringed upon.
Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce’s Position: No Position